It still doesn’t seem like it was all that long ago, but at this point it was 18 months ago when NVIDIA launched the first member of their Maxwell 1 GPU family, the GM107-based GeForce GTX 750 series. A prelude of things to come, the GTX 750 series introduced us to NVIDIA’s highly optimized Maxwell architecture, reaching new levels of energy efficiency and also work efficiency per CUDA core. What the Maxwell 1 architecture lacked that Maxwell 2 brought with us later in 2014 was support for newer features such as HDMI 2.0 and graphical features like conservative rasterization – Maxwell 1 from a feature perspective was closer to a highly power optimized Kepler in that regard.

Maxwell 1 of course was relatively short-lived before NVIDIA moved on to Maxwell 2, delivering GM204, GM206, and GM200 over the last 12 months. Given NVIDIA’s unusual rollout of Maxwell 1 and Maxwell 2, there has always been some question of if and how NVIDIA would follow up on GM107; it’s a power efficient architecture, but there’s a real feature disparity. As has become clear since then, NVIDIA is not going to rev another lower-end GPU so soon after the last one. Instead, with GM206 currently powering only a single product – GTX 960 – NVIDIA is instead going to cut down GM206 to close the gap in as reasonable a manner as the situation allows.

The end result of that is that today NVIDIA is launching the GeForce GTX 950, the Maxwell 2 update for much of the rest of NVIDIA’s lineup. As yet another GM206 SKU there are no big surprises here – we’re already familiar with GM206 – but this brings GM206’s performance and features down to a lower price point of $159.

Meanwhile on a quick housekeeping note, as today's launch comes at the tail end of Intel's IDF 2015, timing constraints mean that we won't be posting our review of the GTX 950 today. Our full review will be up next week once the show has concluded, so be sure to check back a bit later this month.

NVIDIA GPU Specification Comparison
  GTX 960 GTX 950 GTX 750 Ti GTX 650 Ti
CUDA Cores 1024 768 640 768
Texture Units 64 48 40 64
ROPs 32 32 16 16
Core Clock 1126MHz 1024MHz 1020MHz 925MHz
Boost Clock 1178MHz 1188MHz 1085MHz N/A
Memory Clock 7GHz GDDR5 6.6GHz GDDR5 5.4GHz GDDR5 5.4GHz GDDR5
Memory Bus Width 128-bit 128-bit 128-bit 128-bit
FP64 1/32 FP32 1/32 FP32 1/32 FP32 1/24 FP32
TDP 120W 90W 60W 110W
Architecture Maxwell 2 Maxwell 2 Maxwell 1 Kepler
GPU GM206 GM206 GM107 GK106
Transistor Count 2.94B 2.94B 1.87B 2.54B
Manufacturing Process TSMC 28nm TSMC 28nm TSMC 28nm TSMC 28nm
Launch Date 01/22/15 08/20/15 02/18/14 10/09/12
Launch Price $199 $159 $149 $149

Diving into the specifications, NVIDIA has cut down GM206 in such a manner that I suspect it’s not quite as steep a cut from GTX 960 as some readers would have expected. Compared to GTX 960, GTX 950 loses one-quarter of its SMMs – going from 8 to 6 – bringing the CUDA core count down from 1024 to 768. Otherwise the memory bus/ROP clusters are left intact, with 32 ROPs connected to a 128-bit GDDR5 memory bus.

As for clockspeeds, relative to GTX 960 what we’re seeing both is and isn’t much of a cut. GTX 950 ships with a much wider delta between the base clock and boost clock than GTX 960, with a 1024MHz base and 1188MHz boost. This larger disparity is for power reasons, as a lower base clock goes hand-in-hand with tighter TDP restrictions (more on this in a sec). What this means is that GTX 950 can boost almost as high as GTX 960, but when facing a more strenuous workload it will have to back off in a manner GTX 960 did not. Meanwhile memory clockspeeds have also taken a haircut from 7GHz to 6.6GHz. This mostly seems to be for the purpose of creating an artificial distinction, as no one supplies a 6.6GHz GDDR5 speed grade as far as we’re aware.

In any case this puts the theoretical performance of the GTX 950 at anywhere between 101% and 68% of the performance of GTX 960, depending on the workload. In practice we’ll find that it’s closer to the smaller of those numbers, as most workloads are clearly shader/SMM-bound right now, feeling the pinch of fewer CUDA cores. On the other hand in the unlikely scenario of having a workload that was ROP-bound, then GTX 950 could get near-GTX 960 speeds.

The final major shift for the GTX 950 is TDP. GTX 960 was a 120W TDP part, but for GTX 950 NVIDIA is dropping the TDP to 90W. This is accomplished through the aforementioned disabled SMMs, along with greater GPU throttling (relative to boost speeds), in order to keep the card at that point. As a result GTX 950 still requires a 6-pin PCIe power connector, and the TDP drop is more about improving the card’s suitability in HTPCs or other lower-power PCs.

The end result is that NVIDIA is pitching the GTX 950 about as you’d expect it. For HTPC users who wanted what’s still the only GPU with both HDMI 2.0 support and HEVC decoding, GTX 950 is a cheaper, lower power option. Otherwise for budget gamers, like the rest of the GTX 900 series, NVIDIA is pitching the GTX 950 as the next-generation replacement for GTX 650. We’ll save the marketing for another time, but expect to see NVIDIA push the GTX 950 as the ultimate MOBA card, offering a decently inexpensive option for League of Legends/DOTA 2 users who are after both high framerates and high image quality.

As an aside, in some of the pre-release leaks I’ve seen the GTX 950 referred to by commenters as the “GTX 900 China edition” – in reference to the Chinese market’s price points and love of MOBAs – and this is probably an accurate description. MOBAs have been a big success story for PC gaming, especially over in Asia where their free-to-play nature makes them more accessible to gamers who have less disposable income, a problem that similarly makes more powerful video cards less affordable. PC video card sales volume is already inversely proportional to price and I’m sure that GTX 950 will sell well for NVIDIA worldwide as a result, but I wouldn’t be the least bit surprised if Asian (APAC) GTX 950 sales significantly outpaced North America and Europe.

Meanwhile, as the more immediate successor to the GTX 750 series, the GTX 950 represents more of a half-step up, similar to what we saw with the GTX 700 series versus the GTX 600 series. GTX 950 packs more CUDA cores than any GTX 750 series SKU, and as a result will have no problem outperforming it. But since both families are based on versions of the Maxwell architecture, it won’t be a huge jump. And low-power users will want to note that the GTX 750 series remains NVIDIA’s only sub-75W (no PCIe power connector) cards. In fact by NVIDIA’s TDP numbers GTX 950 is a bit power hungry, packing in another 128 CUDA cores, faster memory, and Maxwell 2 features in return for a 30W (50%) increase in TDP.

Finally, let’s talk about pricing and the competition. The GTX 950 will be launching at $159 – NVIDIA seemingly going $10 over the more typical price point because they can – $40 below the GTX 960 and $40 above the GTX 750 Ti, which remains on the market and retails for around $119. The GTX 950’s direct competition from AMD will be the Radeon R7 370, AMD’s latest cut-down Pitcairn GPU, which launched back in June at $149. At this point AMD can’t compete in this segment of features – simply put, Pitcairn is old – but what AMD can offer is better performance for the money, so R7 370 is still stiff competition for the GTX 950 for some market segments.

Since GTX 950 is based on GM206, today’s launch is a hard launch, and we don’t expect cards to be hard to come by. Partners are launching fully-custom cards right out of the gate, including factory overclocked cards. So expect retail prices between $159 for those cards closest to the reference specifications, up to $179 for the biggest factory overclocks.

Summer 2015 GPU Pricing Comparison
  $309 GeForce GTX 970
Radeon R9 380 $199  
  $179 GeForce GTX 960
  $159 GeForce GTX 950
Radeon R7 370 $149  
  $119 GeForce GTX 750 Ti
Radeon R7 360 $109  
Comments Locked


View All Comments

  • Denithor - Wednesday, December 9, 2015 - link

    4 months in now and still no review. I'm pretty much finding Anandtech to be almost useless for product reviews anymore.
  • creed3020 - Tuesday, January 12, 2016 - link

    Still no review 6 months later....Was really hoping for one too!
  • meacupla - Thursday, August 20, 2015 - link

    Most of these GTX950 cards are massive.
    You would think the manufacturers could make them smaller than GTX960, but it looks like all they did was reuse the same PCB and heatsink, so these GTX950 cards have no real advantage over the GTX960.
  • WithoutWeakness - Thursday, August 20, 2015 - link

    I'm in the same boat as you. There is no reason these cards need double-slot double-fan coolers on them other than OEMs re-using old designs (GTX 960) to make their lives easier. I would love to see a single-slot design or a short-PCB-single-fan-dual-slot design. No reason that these cards need to be 8-10 inches long with dual fans to dissipate 90W.
  • just4U - Thursday, August 20, 2015 - link

    supposedly the design for the 960..70 allows for what your asking. That's why we see some mini's. I'd assume the 950 would be similar.
  • kaidenshi - Thursday, August 20, 2015 - link

    I'm with both of you. I have one of the short GTX 650 Ti cards, and I love that it can fit in a micro-ATX case or a massive full ATX, depending on how I want to do my next build.
  • xdamm - Monday, August 31, 2015 - link

    That is exactly what EVGA is doing, their standard $159 card comes with a single fan, compact cooler design while their $169 and upwards come heavily overclocked form the factory and use their ACX 2.0 cooler design (which will obviously bring down temperatures quite a bit).

    Personally, I'd spend the extra 10 bucks to get much better cooling performance just for peace of mind.
  • eanazag - Thursday, August 20, 2015 - link

    I'm not all that impressed with the 950 on paper either. The 750ti was and is still of interest to me. The big thing to me is DX12 support, which I'm guessing will be far more limited on the 750 series since it is Nvidia wanting to push profit. I have Windows 10 on all my home PCs, so I'm looking to leverage that.

    I'd be interested to see the power effect of a downclocked 950, specifically on RAM. How far can you bring it down to the 750ti TDP with parity or better performance? 2GB of RAM is a disappointment; I'd like to see a bump to 3-4GB in this segment ($150+).

    In comparison to the AMD 370 I'd opt for the 950 because of features - Pitcairn is too old for me. Now this 950 leaves a larger opportunity for AMD Nano Fury. At the same TDP and the 960's price I'd be looking at AMD for a board size advantage.
    No one seems to be caring for a single slot design, which I'd welcome.
  • MrSpadge - Thursday, August 20, 2015 - link

    GTX950 and Fury Nano within one sentence? Fury Nano is going to be placed against GTX970 (throttled at 145 W, as suggested by nVidia) regarding poer consumption. It may well beat or tie that performance and be at least as expensive.
  • Cryio - Thursday, August 20, 2015 - link

    You'd opt for the 950 because of what features compared to the 370?

    The 370 is just as fast and it's slightly more efficient than the 950, hilarious considering that we're talking about Maxwell 2 vs GCN 1.0 and AMD is winning in efficiency.

Log in

Don't have an account? Sign up now